I'm not sure as I type this out tonight that May 8, 2006 will be a whole lot different than any other Monday. What I am sure of is that the week of May 8, 2006, has the potential to change our lives forever. As we roll out this week, President Bush is about to make what could easily amount to his most crucial decision since taking office.
Events since 2000, when GW Bush took office, have unfolded in an array of very difficult, and difficult-to-understand manners. September 11th is just one of a multitude of infamous dates to bear down upon his administration, or to bolster it as well, depending upon which ledger you look at. I have often said that I voted for GW for President because I saw him construct a more than adequate bi-partisan government in Texas while he was Governor. I also make no bones about the fact that I gave my vote to Ross Perot instead of GHW Bush, rather than to herald in an experienced spook, and outspoken warmonger. Boy did I screw up. Welcome to the continuing third term of George Herbert Walker Bush complete with his entire supporting cast.
GW's impending nomination of a John Negroponte-requested, and Rumsfeld-approved, military officer to lead The Citizen's Intelligence Agency is not only absurd, it borders upon catastrophic and criminal at the least. At the most? This could be an almost irreversible decline in the little bit of world respect this nation has left. Enter the new SS. The CIA, correctly known as the Central Intelligence Agency, was formed and intended to be, a citizen-run, as opposed to military, intelligence agency. So much the fact that Congress even passed a law stating that if either of the top positions in that agency were filled with a military officer, then the other was mandated by law to be filled from the private sector. The current Assistant Director of the CIA is a military officer.
Conspiracy theorists abound today, and while I find some of their musings to be interesting in much the same way one might find Nostradamus intriguing, I am not one. I fancy myself more as a Comparison Theorist, after all, what good is history if we do not seek it out, look, learn, and listen to its teachings?
Fatal flaws in Hitler's regime occurred from the very moment that the lines between military and government officials were blurred. Power is a funny bedfellow; it neither builds nor fails without an infrastructure to nourish it, to acknowledge it. Framers of our government saw this early on, and embedded the very body and soul of their convictions in our Constitution at the onset.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
Paul, you're determined to make the next CIA Director into Goering, aren't you?
First Paul suspected that Negroponte would step down from overseeing all intelligence agencies in order to run the CIA. That would be a move similar to Goering! It would also remind us of JQ Adams, Howard Baker, and Winston Churchill, who each served his government where needed. It's no rarity to move up, down, and laterally in an administrative career.
Now Hayden moves closer to the nomination, and to the title of Goering. Hayden's goeringness isn't based on a demotion, but on the fact that he's a career military man. Paul's imagining that Hayden will get the nomination, but the Deputy Director (also military) will refuse to step down, thus breaking the law. In any large organization, you pick the top man, and adjust the next layers of personnel accordingly. Few people have ever stayed in an administration job longer than their bosses wanted them to, and it's never happened in the military. So new Director in = old Deputy Director out.
2 - Arch Conservative
Of course he is Baronius. He's already convinced that Bush is Hitler. I guess that makes Rumsfeld- Reinhardt Heidrich, Rove - Adolph Eichmann and Condaleeza Rice - Eva Braun.
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Paul, I think it is deadly to try to compare Bush to Hitler. Either GHW Bush or GW Bush. The most important thing to remember when dealing with comparative history are the similarities and differences between the individuals who play on its stage at any given time.
GHW Bush had a self admitted problem with the "vision" thing. Good tactics, but weak on overall strategic vision. GW Bush may have been fit to be a governor. I'll not dispute your analysis of his governance of Texas. You know more about that than I would or ever could. But he does not have the understanding to be a competent president. That he is serving his second term bespeaks the basic sickness of your country's political system. But I digress.
Adolf Hitler, a man steeped in evil, had a vision and pursued it relentlessly. Had he been like Stalin, suspicious of others and impervious to flattery, it is likely that he would have succeeded in winning the conflict he started. But he was a megalomaniac and made the mistakes that megalomaniacs tend to make - the most dangerous of which is believing the flattery that dictators are surrounded with, a tendency that eventually becomes believing one's own bullshit and inability to make an error.
The point here is to highlight the basic differences between Hitler and the Bushes, father and son.
I dio not believe that there is any strategic or tactical planning in the placing of the pieces in GW Bush's waning term as president. He is filling posts as best he can, as his cirle of sycophants and advisors start to stink more and more and wear out the welcome they may have gotten in 2001.
I'd be more willing to believe that he has an active plan to be an American (or world) dictator - using a plan drawn up by some fool who masturbates himself to orgasm on power trips - than that he has an intelligent strategy in his appointments.
4 - Arch conservative
Not only does Paul compare Bush to Hitler but conversely he is also comparing the Jews in 1940's to today's muslims.
I don't think history shows that the Jews attacked the Germans in the 1940's using terrorism.
The Jews weren't fanatics hell bent on destroying the German people and culture as today's radical muslims are in regard to America.
Your post has no validity regardless of of any angle it is viewed from Paul.
What clearly caused you to write this post, your blinding and all consuming contempt for the current administration with no concern for rational objectivity is so transparent Paul.
5 - Paul Jordan, Sr.
Baronius,
Go back and read the first article again, skimming doesn't help
"And if General Hayden gets it instead, then the mystery only deepens. Whom is leading whom, what better way to be in control of all, than to be trully in control of the watch and the dog?"
It is never simple enough for you Neocons is it?,
and ARCH?
How is anyone ever supposed to take your words seriously when you waste the majority of your comments spamming? Nevertheless, Braun lay with Hitler, and Rice lies for Bush, so I guess they were somewhat similar. Thanks for the input!
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Bing, you wrote,
"Not only does Paul compare Bush to Hitler but conversely he is also comparing the Jews in 1940's to today's muslims."
If I'd smelled somthing like that in Paul's article, don't you thnk I would have jumped all over him for that?
7 - Paul Jordan, Sr.
Thanks Ruvy for pointing out the obvious.
Arch,
I voted for this administration, twice. I have looked at myself as a Conservative for many years. I have realized what an important lesson in life it is to learn from mistakes made. You wrote
"What clearly caused you to write this post, your blinding and all consuming contempt for the current administration with no concern for rational objectivity is so transparent Paul."
My how perceptive you aren't. The only 'contempt' I have is for politicians who do not listen to the people, and continue forward with hazardous agendas. This administration does fit that suit rather nicely. To state it as all consuming would be an absolute, and the Neocons like you are the only ones I know who deal in absolutes. To state that I compared as you say, only indicates your own personal thought process.
8 - Paul Jordan, Sr.
Let me re-emphasize that the key point in my piece is echoed by Rep. Senator Hoekstra, The CIA does not need a Military leader. And as of 10 minutes ago, that choice is now in Congress' hands.
9 - Arch Conservative
Paul...if you wanna say that the CIA shouldn't be headed by a military guy that's fine but when you start comparing the administration to the nazis you sound like a Ted Kennedy loving lefist moonbat. You happen to not be one but nine out of ten times the person saying such things would be one.
You called me a neocon based on hearing me say nothing but that comparing Bush to Hitler is inane?
10 - Paul Jordan, Sr.
Archie,
I merely laid the facts side by side, it is up to you, the reader, to compare or not compare. Neocon is pretty much a pseudonym for Arch Conservative, wouldn't you say, literally speaking? ( or was I thinking synonym?...no matter)
As for the moonbat reference, I am a Cancer (moonchild), but no, I pretty much stick to the politics of the South, Teddy's never tripped my trigger.
11 - zingzing
oh come on bing. everybody has seen your comments elsewhere. i wouldn't call you a neocon... your values are too whacked out to fit in with any group. what does it say when a self-professed conservative says that bush is a crazy? hmm?
and your obvious hatred of muslims, no matter if they are violent or not, is getting a bit boring.
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gentlemen,
Can we get back to business here? To the best of my knowledge, a neocon is a former liberal (often a Jew) who has discovered the virtues of "conservative" politics. "Neo-con" is often used to slam top Jews in the Republican administration with using the "J" word and exposing the real thought behind the slam.
Paul, if your main point is to decry the militarization of civilian posts, look at ehe government of Israel, the government of the late days of the Roman Republic, and a few other places. You would do better to use them as comparisons that the Nazi regime of the last (Christian) century.
13 - Arch Conservative
Why don't you try to be more accurate zing.
It's hatred of "radical terrorist muslims" that I hate not "muslims."
You're lucky you're from the south Paul. I live in NH and I can smell ted Kennedy's BO here.
14 - Michael J. West
Ruvy, I think your knowledge is a bit flawed. I know of exactly one Jew in the U.S. (Paul Wolfowitz) to whom I would refer as a neo-con. Actually, a surprising number of them are Roman Catholics.
A large number of antisemitic jerks, like Pat Buchanan and Juan Cole, have attacked the neocons for "advancing the interests of the Jewish cabal," but I assure you it's merely propaganda. Callign someone a "Neo-con" is by no means equivalent to slandering their Judaism. At least not from where I sit.
15 - Arch Conservative
Neo-con is a term thrown about by idiot liberals and some idiot conservatives who do not bash the current administration on every issue from where I sit.
For instance Paul labelled me a neocon simply because I critisized his rediculous comparison of this administration with Hitler and the nazis. I did not defend the administration in any way beyond this yet I'm a neocon.
The fact is that there are plenty of issues that this administration does not share my views or have my support on such as illegal aliens, fiscal responsibility, and the handling of the war in Iraq. But if i don't agree with those who blindly hate Bush no matter what he does...I'm a neocon.
Oh well.
16 - Let The Truth Be Told
Paul,,,,
There is no such law that states that "that if either of the top positions in that agency were filled with a military officer, then the other was mandated by law to be filled from the private sector. The current Assistant Director of the CIA is a military officer"
Stop making things up to Bush Bash! Stick with the facts and not lies and phony stories
17 - RedTard
This has to be one of the most absurd posts I have ever read. Every day the American left manages to stoop to a new low of hatred and vile.
I sometimes get fed up with the corruption and porkbarrel spending that the republicans do. Thanks to posts like this I'm reminded why I must vote for them. The only alternative is the loony leftwing moonbats who hate America and everything it stands for.
Thanks, Paul, for helping me decide which party to vote for in the next election.
18 - Michael J. West
This has to be one of the most absurd posts I have ever read. Every day the American left manages to stoop to a new low of hatred and vile.
Perhaps so, Redtard, but before you make a final decision regarding which party to vote for, may I suggest you stop in here?
You know, just in case you didn't think the American right could "stoop to a new low of hatred and vile."
19 - MCH
"The only alternative is the loony leftwing moonbats who hate America and everything it stands for."
Yeah, keep voting for those phoney rightwing war-wimps who pupeteered the invasion and occupation of Iraq, sending over 2,300 soldiers (none being their offspring, of course) to their deaths...
20 - zingzing
you know what, bing, i really did miss the 'radical' in front of muslim in your post. sorry. *sigh... i'll never do that again*
21 - Paul Jordan, Sr.
Continue on my friends, I once did as a Republican, defend every move, claim foul at every turn. You know the truth, accept it.
22 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
So, former Republican, fine--we get it. But why the huge pendulum swing to the absurdity of the Bush-is-Hitler canard? I--and most others--will never grant you any credibility from now on, and you only do your cause harm by such asinine, over-the-top comparisons.
23 - Baronius
Paul, it's always risky to extend a discussion across different posting boards. I felt that your demonstration of Godwin's Law in both your recent articles was relevant to this discussion, but it's best to keep the conversations themselves segregated.
There have been 19 heads of the CIA, six of them military. I don't know that a military man is the best choice for the position today, but there is plenty of precedent.
About neocons: the term stems from a 1960's-70's intellectual movement, largely among Jewish thinkers. They were disillusioned with the American Left following Israel's war in 1973. They weren't grounded in the conservative tradition; in fact they were mostly social science types. That's the "neo" part. Their conservatism was pragmatic. Like most political words, its original meaning is disappearing.
24 - John Bambenek
How exactly is appointing Hayden against the law again?
25 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Baronius writes,
"About neocons: the term stems from a 1960's-70's intellectual movement, largely among Jewish thinkers. They were disillusioned with the American Left following Israel's war in 1973. They weren't grounded in the conservative tradition; in fact they were mostly social science types. That's the "neo" part. Their conservatism was pragmatic. Like most political words, its original meaning is disappearing."
Bing writes,
"Neo-con is a term thrown about by ... some idiot conservatives..."
Baronius has the term on the money. Neo-cons were Jewish liberals "mugged" by other liberals who sided with the Arabs in 1973. Bing notes that "right-wingers" use the term.
My concern about the term is when it is used by the top dogs in power to imply that the largely Jewish segment of people whom neo-cons represent are essentially Jews trying to "pass" as the "real thing" - patriotic Christian Americans. It's just another way of stigmatizing Jews as not belonging in America. My concern is not that the top dogs are bigots - I know they are. My concern is that my fellow Jews are too stupid to see what is really happening - or too bought into the system to admit what is happening to themselves.